MovieChat Forums > When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth (1971) Discussion > The one thing so many older films get wr...

The one thing so many older films get wrong

posted 11 years ago by Flywiththeowl
5 replies | jump to latest

Besides all the other oversights often mentioned, when depicting the past or future- hair.
So many 'caveman/dino' flicks from the 50's -70s made the same hilarious mistake of styling most everyone's hair in real-world present time. So we get cave people with Elvis dos & women with big 60's "bumpit" manes. "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth" was no exception. I love it! (this is the case with tons of old sci-fi movies as well)

I don't think it was until sometime well into the 80's when they started trying to correct this.

[–] ClassicMovieholic 11 years ago

The one thing?

How about dinosaurs coexisting with people, or the moon forming after people, or people millions of years ago having evolved into gorgeous blondes...not hairy, ape-like creatures many evolutionary steps away from 1960s playboy playmates?

But yes, "historical" movies of pretty much every era get two things wrong...hair and makeup. It's not just older films. With movies like this, I wouldn't say it's even a mistake. The filmmakers knew what they were doing when they portrayed women's hairstyles as attractive according to contemporary standards, just as they knew what they were doing when they designed fur bikinis with the structural support of the Golden Gate Bridge. Daryl Hannah's fashionably teased and feathered "natural" do in Clan of the Cave Bear (1986) may have been an attempt at a more accurate depiction, as were the liberal-arts-major-obsessed-with-Bob-Marley dreds in the recent 10,000 B.C., but at the end of the day, they reflect the fashionable views of the times just as much as those older films.

No doubt, movies we perceive to be accurate now will look dated to future viewers. The Leopard (1963), was considered a masterpiece of historical authenticity at the time, but the modern viewer sees Claudia Cardinale's '60s cat-eye makeup. Barry Lyndon (1975) was also thought to be meticulously accurate at the time, but the over-styled eighteenth century wigs recall '70s excess as much as baroque opulence. The generic, too long for the period, waved "Veronica Lake" hairstyle seen on women in Pearl Harbor seemed all right a few years ago, but looks like a glamorized, early-2000s version of the early 1940s in retrospect.

But I don't think movies like When Dinosaur's Ruled the Earth and One Million B.C. were really pretending to be anything but crowd pleasing vehicles to showcase women's bodies and stop-motion effects. Lots of beauties in "Summer Blondes Magazine, 1971 edition" platinum wigs, and that ain't bad!

[–] Flywiththeowl 11 years ago

"The one thing? How about dinosaurs coexisting with people..."

Hah! Yes, like I began- "Besides all the other oversights often mentioned.."

But agreed with your general statements. Though in the recent examples you gave, I still say they at least *attempted*. I don't think much of any attempt was made in the older films. But hey- like you said "Lots of beauties in "Summer Blondes Magazine, 1971 edition" platinum wigs, and that ain't bad!" :)

[–] Wuchakk 10 years ago

The one thing? How about dinosaurs coexisting with people?

Actually, it's likely that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time, whether you and National Geographic care to admit it or not. How else do you explain the dinosaurs depicted in ancient art, often along with other conventional animals. Here's an example: http://www.miqel.com/images_1/random_image/randomized-fascination-photos/palestrina1.jpg

Here's another: http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/Relief-carving-at-Angkor-Wat,.jpg?itok=IQUtdw7E

The idea that humans and dinosaurs didn't coexist is a myth perpetuated by non-scientific "science."

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] ClassicMovieholic 9 years ago

It is a matter of record that people in the ancient world encountered fossils of dinosaurs and interpreted them in various ways. In ancient China, for example, they were thought to be dragon bones. There is no reason to think people might not have based some of those artistic depictions on what they had seen in fossilized remains.

Furthermore, it is also a matter of fact that humans and giant reptiles walked the earth at the same time...still do in fact. A giant reptile does not a dinosaur make...actually, modern birds are literal dinosaurs.

We are also naive in our assumption that pre-modern people could not have had any knowledge of the distant past. People were capable of finding and interpreting remains of extinct species long before modern science called them "dinosaurs", just as they were perfectly capable of building monumental structures without the help of aliens.

Lastly, some of those images do bear a remarkable resemblance to what we today understand as dinosaurs. Others look like fanciful depictions of mythological dragons. There is no reason to think that some of them might not have been based in part on descriptions or observation of fossils, or on the other hand that they were purely a product of imagination. Never underestimate the powers of the human imagination...we have countless cultural depictions of the Easter Bunny, but that doesn't make it so.

That's not to say dinosaurs might not have survived on our planet longer than we have supposed. Believers will never stop claiming "dinosaur" sightings in the Congo, and Scotland of all places, with little veracity. yet we now know that a small population of wooly mammoths survived as late as 4,000 years ago on an isolated island north of Siberia, so humans were building the pyramids at the same time that mammoths were walking the earth, making 10,000 BC just a little less ridiculous. So who are we to judge. And some dinosaurs do still survive in modern times.

You're right in a way. We do coexist with dinosaurs and have throughout all of human history. We even eat their eggs. They're smaller and more feathered than the ones we line up to see in Jurassic Park, but we are walking the earth at the same time as actual dinosaurs, and that's pretty cool!

[–] Wuchakk 9 years ago

It's an insightful and well-said post; thanks.

Others look like fanciful depictions of mythological dragons.

Many cultures around the globe have myths about dragons. Are these purely fictional myths or stories based on past reality, just exaggerated, like many myths?

There is no reason to think that some of them might not have been based in part on descriptions or observation of fossils, or on the other hand that they were purely a product of imagination.

It's a legitimate possibility, but (1.) the creatures are depicted with flesh and (2.) they're often depicted right alongside conventional animals. Here's a stegosaurus alongside a monkey, a deer and a rat: http://s355.photobucket.com/user/ravenofsorrows81/media/Images%20for%20posts/dino-mystery_zps3698bca3.jpg.html. You'll find numerous other examples if you research it, but you're likely already aware of this.

That's not to say dinosaurs might not have survived on our planet longer than we have supposed.

In light of the evidence there seems to me to be a high possibility that conventional dinosaurs lived a lot longer than is presupposed. On land maybe up to medieval times or even just hundreds of years ago; and there may still be dinosaurs in the oceans, like plesiosaurs. How were the last vestiges of these beasts killed off on land? By humans as populations increased just as big, threatening animals have been wiped out of populated areas today. Like you say, don't underestimate the capabilities of our more primitive ancestors. Where did the "slay the dragon" myth come from? Maybe real-life where warriors literally went out and slayed the colossal dinosaur.

making 10,000 BC just a little less ridiculous

One cool thing about that movie is the depiction of the tribe slaying the mammoth in the opening act.

I obviously didn't live in the distant past so I don't know; I'm just honestly speculating based on various evidence. It's an alternative perspective to the typical one where people automatically assume that people and dinosaurs never existed together just because some axxhole college professor or National Geographic told them. Don't get me wrong because I appreciate higher learning and National Geographic and even subscribe to the mag, but that doesn't mean I foolishly buy everything they put forth as absolute fact.

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/